The policy regarding how PFS wizards, magi, alchemists, and witches add spells/formulae to their appropriate books/familiars was updated in a PFS FAQ posting a few months ago.
Bottom line, it got much easier and cheaper to do so by bringing it in line with normal Pathfinder RPG rules. Now you can search out NPC spellcasters and pay the normal finder's fee (half the cost of scribing a spell of that level) to copy spells from their books/familiars rather than have to go the more expensive route of buying scrolls to copy. Naturally, you still get the two free spells every time you take a level of the applicable class.
Don't forget to keep your Spellcraft skill high enough so that you can just Take 10 on the check and don't waste the gold on a blown roll.
Aha! Good to know. Thanks for sharing that useful tidbit! =)
NWOrpheus, me, IS the OP xD And no, I haven't played any of the first steps yet, unfortunately. Haven't found anyone in my local group to run em, as everyone is still caught up in Season 4 stuff. Which is fine, those are fun, too.
Improved Invis and Mirror Image are redundant. The images must be visible in order for them to get 'popped', and the images mimic your appearance. If you're invisible, so are they, and thus useless while under the effects of improved invis.
Did 'Way of the Kirin' the other day, and that had a lot of RP involved, as well. It was a really fun chronicle.
The place I did it actually had 2 tables running it, and the two GM's actually both took the part of different NPC's, giving it a really fun and interesting dynamic.
A lot of online games are going to be, for the sake of brevity, roll-play. But, I imagine PbP/PbF games to be more Role-play. In person sessions it's just going to depend on your group.
So, one of the most limiting factors of wizards is spellbooks. Is there a way to expand your book, aside from buying scrolls?
Obviously you can always trade with another wizard, if you encounter one. From what I've heard, though, coming across scrolls and such during the course of play is relatively rare. That makes it hard for wizards to take advantage of yet ANOTHER key feature of the class, which is expansive spell knowledge. In essence, by limiting their spells known, you turn them into sorcs with less spell casting ability per day.
Is there a way to trade 'online'? Maybe say that once per level your character can meet up with another pathfinder to swap?
It seems that in an organization like Pathfinder Society, it should be relatively common for two wizards to sit down and compare notes, and exchange spells with each other, in the spirit of 'cooperation'.
Perhaps a prestige expenditure to allow you to learn a number of spells based on your level?
Maybe something like this exists, and I just don't know of it yet, but it seems sensible, since wizards already lose out in the magic item creation arena.
You might also consider reading some of the guides out there on how to make 'effective' wizards. Though, most of those end up being 'optimized' wizards.
All the same, they can at least spark ideas for your own play. Just remember, pump your DC's as high as possible, but have an assortment of spells with a variety of DC's for different enemies, if possible.
Currently, as a player, you get the rewards for the subtier that you played at. In this case, you get Subtier 3-4's rewards.
As a GM, you get the rewards for the tier most appropriate to character level.
Hey, can I get a clarification for that, David? Do you mean to say that you get the reward for the tier most appropriate to the character level you apply it to?
IE, if I was GMing the OP's game, and running a Tier 3-4, would I get 1-2 rewards if applying it to a level 1 or 2, and 3-4 rewards if applying it to a level 3-4 character?
I -figured- that's what you meant, but thought I'd ask just so there's no confusion. =)
I've removed additional posts with back and forth bashing. You've already been put on notice by several other employees. If it happens again,I'm locking this thread.
More like one employee, several times, but I take your point. I really should just stop reading it. It seems others have.
I actually have a multi-class build that you'd like, I'm sure, but I might not use in PFS because it doesn't come into major usefulness until very late game, but, I was going to do a magus/cleric/mystic theurge.
I'm working on bard/cleric/mystic theurge! :)
(...only 6 more levels to go before it all comes together...)
Mystic Theurge is one of the older Prestige Classes that I can think of. With all the new options for divine and arcane spellcasters both, though, there are a lot more alternatives available. Unfortunately, a lot of the other classes have features/abilities that are hampered by multi-classing. But Mystic Theurge, if you want just a pure casting nightmare? Gooood times.
If you really wanted to get nasty, try and take two classes that are both cha based, instead of cha/wis, or int/wis. Though the bard/cleric makes a nice combo for a channel centric build.
The Cav or Paladin are good points, Rycaut, since they'd both benefit me the armor and martial weapons.
I actually have a multi-class build that you'd like, I'm sure, but I might not use in PFS because it doesn't come into major usefulness until very late game, but, I was going to do a magus/cleric/mystic theurge.
I thought that if you GM'd a chronicle that you had to apply that XP and chronicle sheet to an appropriately leveled character?
Are you saying that if I GM'd 12 Tier 1-2 chronicles for people that I could have a level 5 character, out of the box?
If so, THAT sounds remarkably cheesy. It does seem like maybe you should have to apply 1 XP from a played chronicle (as opposed to GM'd) each character level or something. Probably won't happen, but seems like a 'novel' idea.
Castilliano wrote:
Also, how many martial weapons do you plan on using?
You can usually land a good one with race or favored weapon, and the extra level of casting is very valuable, especially if it gives you access to a nicer buff (which could cover the difference in damage/AC from the Fighter stuff) or to game-changing spells.
+1 level casting & channeling & domain abilities vs.
+1/4 BAB & heavy armor & all martial weapons & 1 combat feat
Maybe I'm too into magic, but I'd go full Cleric even if making a combat monster.
Cheers, JMK
Even if it's just 1 martial weapon that I ever plan on using (Naginata in this case, I'm thinking), that's 1 feat. Heavy Armor proficiency is another feat. Plus the feat granted for warrior. That's actually 3 feats that I'm benefiting from.
As has been pointed out, though, the only real advantage, ultimately, in changing what the level 1 character is? Is 1 HP, as opposed to taking fighter as my level 2 class. Which is what I'm going to end up doing. Though, when I do, I'll be changing what my level 1 feat is (Being as I'm using Martial Weapon Proficiency right now) before I level up.
I was going to post, but there is just too much vitriol and anger in this thread. I advise everyone to step back and breathe, to come back to this thread after letting it cool off. Flaring tempers do no favors to anyone. At the end of the day, we are all Pathfinders. Try to not forget that.
Everyone seems calm to me. I don't see any insults being thrown.
How about, when that unpredictable one-shot-kill critical comes up behind the screen, we just tell the players and ask them how they want it dealt with?
I don't think anyone would agree to that.
Except for Jiggy (and not even in this thread), I haven't seen anyone say they'd actually go for the perma-death if given the choice.
So I think this is a horribly idea.
Sometimes things happen, and death happens, and you just gotta,
"DEAL WITH IT!"
I would go for perma death if given the choice. I would shrug, chuckle, and say, "That's how the cookie crumbles... or the dice fall."
Baron, my point was that the vast majority of 1-5s can't be replayed - there exists a very small subset that can. The post that I quoted assumed that all of them can be replayed.
Andrew, I think that PFS needs to simply be more accepting of allowing for the occasional fudging of really, really bad luck at early levels due to the far-reaching implications, or that it should provide options for low-level Raise Dead. That's all. The weapons don't need to be changed, GMs just need to be expressly given the power to ignore a threatened critical if the need strikes.
Unless the rule is, that GM’s “MUST” ignore the one-shot kill, I’m going to guess than most won’t. I could be completely speaking out of school, but in my experience, it really takes a judge who’s given up on bringing ego to the table to be able to not have a GM vs. Player attitude. Additionally, with all the power building going on that tends to neuter encounters, some human beings have a tendency to overcompensate when they actually get a chance to get the upper hand.
I guess what I’m saying is, is that I want to trust and believe that most GM’s would use discretion to the better part of character valor every time were they given the most leeway to do so, but I don’t believe that the to be true. Quite the opposite. Given the option to be nice, I think that most GM’s would choose to get the kill in all but the most extreme (it’s a newby or a child) situations. Just my opinion.
Why? Because we are having this conversation, and the rules are already quite explicitly in the guide to give GM’s the leeway to be nice in these situations.
So the only way to solve it, would be to mandate it as a rule. And that would drive more GM’s from the game than what is currently driving away players, and that would be a bad, bad thing.
The problem is... there needs to be a policy, one way or the other, so that it's fair to all players, everywhere. That's one of the driving premises of Organized Society play. That all players are treated equally. That no player be given an unfair advantage over another. If some GM's decide, of their own volition, to step outside the game's structures, but other GM's don't, and then those players meet online, then one player is getting a benefit that the other doesn't.
Which is why the rules are in place as they are. To assure that doesn't happen.
You're arguing apples and oranges, again, TriOmegaZero.
In your example, Player 2 still has the capability of achieving what player 1 has. In my example, Player 1 can not obtain what Player 2 has. Therefor, Player 2 has an unfair advantage over the capabilities of Player 1, purely because Player 1 followed the rules. Or more accurately, because Player 1's GM did.
How is it unfair? Because Player 1 can't get those specific rewards? What does it matter that Player 2 has those rewards and Player 1 goes and plays a different scenario and gets different rewards? They are not in direct competition. Player 2 will never use those rewards to 'beat' Player 1.
That doesn't matter, TriOmega. The 'competition' isn't the factor. It's that Player 2 is privileged in a way that is UNFAIR to Player 1, by having something that he shouldn't have.
Player 2 can still do the modules Player 1 has done, and EARN his rewards, just like Player 1 has to do. But Player 1 cannot go back and revive his dead character and get the things that Player 2 has. That is why it's an unfair advantage.
Noun
A condition or circumstance that puts one in a favorable or superior position.
Verb
Put in a favorable or more favorable position.
Synonyms
noun. benefit - profit - vantage - gain - interest - avail
verb. promote - further - favour - favor - profit
If this were a competitive game, I'd agree with you. It's not. It's a cooperative game. In fact, my decisions are helping you, if anything, because there are more higher-level PCs in existence. The number of PCs that I could have killed had I allowed a crit is probably about 3, so the effect is really a miniscule one.
Player 1: Played by rules. Can't have item A.
Player 2: Didn't play by rules. Has item A.
Which player has the unfair advantage?
Player 1: Played by the rules. Is level 5.
Player 2: Played by the rules. Is level 4.
Which player has the unfair advantage?
Not to mention, advantage over what?
You're arguing apples and oranges, again, TriOmegaZero.
In your example, Player 2 still has the capability of achieving what player 1 has. In my example, Player 1 can not obtain what Player 2 has. Therefor, Player 2 has an unfair advantage over the capabilities of Player 1, purely because Player 1 followed the rules. Or more accurately, because Player 1's GM did.
Stop trolling, please. My scenario and yours have nothing to do with each other.
If this were a competitive game, I'd agree with you. It's not. It's a cooperative game. In fact, my decisions are helping you, if anything, because there are more higher-level PCs in existence. The number of PCs that I could have killed had I allowed a crit is probably about 3, so the effect is really a miniscule one.
This thread is rapidly approaching lock territory, but I'll just throw this out here:
We're in the Pathfinder Society section. It's probably best to keep the discussion focused n that setting. With that in mind:
Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play wrote:
Under no circumstance should a table ever have eight or more players.
This is not in dispute. It's a rule for sanctioned play. Anyone is free to run home games with as many people as they like. If you feel this is restrictive and should be changed, feel free to start a new thread lobbying for a change. Mike listens, and if you have a good argument you may be able to enact some kind of change.
Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play wrote:
While we do not advocate fudging die rolls, consider the experience of the player when deciding whether to use especially lethal tactics or if a character is in extreme danger of death, especially when such a player is new to the game. Most players whose first experience in a campaign results in a character death do not return to the campaign.
So don't fudge rolls. But do soften tactics if necessary.
The other thing you can do as a GM to help your players survive? Help them survive. Suggest that maybe they should avoid putting themselves in a position to get hit with a Full Attack. Point out a route that will avoid them getting AoOs. Suggest they should maybe cast defensively. Remind them that one of the bad guys already has a significant amount of damage and could be finished off with focused fire.
I always try to do this in low-level games. If they make the same mistake twice, I let the dice decide.
Cheating and Fudging: We all know that cheating is bad. But sometimes, as a GM, you might find yourself in a situation where cheating might improve the game. We prefer to call this “fudging” rather than cheating, and
while you should try to avoid it when you can, you are the law in your world, and you shouldn’t feel bound by the dice. A GM should be impartial and fair, and in theory, that’s what random dice results help support.
I think the key here is "Impartial and Fair".
Problem is, that's from the core rulebook, and is meant to be directed towards home games.
Mike Brock wrote:
Mike Brock
I'm going to go outside my normal position of letting the player base police itself and say this. This post is directed at any person who wants to encourage cheating and breaking the rules. If you don't want to follow the rules we have established for Organized Play, then don't play our campaign. I have seen posts and advice that continuously encourage people to break the rules and this will stop. Are there some rules that can change to make the campaign better? Of course and we are working to fix those. Should people blatantly break the rules because they don't like them? Absolutely not. If you feel this is what you need to do, then leave the campaign. Encouraging people to intentionally break the rules is the same as encouraging cheating, especially playing outside of their tier, and it is not welcome and will stop.
This is not said in an angry or irritated tone. It is a matter of fact statement. Enough is enough.[/url]
Netopalis; you're not seeing the point. You're giving out rewards to others who should not have them. Rewards that I or other players cannot access because we played by the rules. Therefor, you are affecting my characters, by giving others an unfair advantage over them.
Okay, seriously mod? You're deleting some posts that I really don't think should be deleted. Are you just deleting them out of hand, now? I'm sure this one will get deleted, too, but I'd like to see some direct quotes, perhaps in private message, of what rules I'm breaking by that last post that you deleted of mine, where I stated what his options were.
Because cheating is NOT an option that should be allowed. And changing the rules to suit his whim (which is his benefit) is cheating.
Further, the fact that my tables are very slightly less lethal than the norm does not in any way affect your benefits from a particular scenario.
Yeeeah, actually it does. Because if I die, I don't get those benefits. Where the player at your table who SHOULD have died, if you hadn't fudged the roll, does get them. How is that not affecting me?
If you're playing in Pathfinder, or any PnP game, you have to accept that "permadeath" is a thing.
No, I don't.
Then go back to Hello Kitty Island Adventure.
Welcome to Nerf Pathfinder.
Here's an idea... why don't we just give every enemy in every scenario merciful weapons? Then, no PC will ever die again. The NPC's will just knock them out, tickle them, then leave them some candy in their pockets and wait for them to wake up so that the PC's can come back and kill them.
I forgot to address this earlier, but you really can't compare enemies and PCs. The enemies are *supposed* to lose in the vast majority of cases. They don't get equal opportunity.
No, but that doesn't give heroes a free pass either.
They don't automatically get to win and live just because they are player characters.
Sometimes they lose, and sometimes they die.
Sometimes they might even die in a very anti-climactic way that doesn't befit the heroic and epic story of their life.
Such is the risk of adventuring.
I don't want to be mean about it, but sometimes you just gotta "Deal With It!"
I think that we may just have very different gaming philosophies, and for that reason, we are unlikely to agree.
I am a utilitarianist when it comes to gaming. I believe that games are played for the enjoyment of the players, and I take actions that increase that enjoyment. I advocate for rules changes that I believe will increase that enjoyment. I also do not hold rules in great reverence because they are the vehicle to gaming enjoyment, not the destination.
The crit rule as it currently stands isn't a lot of fun, in my opinion. Neither is dying unceremoniously in an unwinnable situation. As a result, I see no reason to keep things as they are. I certainly don't see any reason for scenarios to be built with that sort of spikiness in mind, especially at Tier 1-2.
See the part in bold? That's YOUR opinion. You can voice your opinion, but you are expected to play within the boundaries of the rules as they exist. If you change things to suit YOUR opinion, you are cheating.
If enough people voice that opinion, than maybe the staff at Paizo will change things. Unless and until they do? Suck it up.
Frankly? You should hang up your GM hat. You've admitted to cheating repeatedly. You do a disservice to every other player in PFS by doing so. You've been given reasons WHY it's cheating, and WHY it's not right to do so, and yet you continue to say "Well, screw the rest of you, I'm going to keep doing things how I want, because it's what I want to do."
The status quo is fine to a vast majority of us, from what I'm seeing. It's the very small majority of people who can't adapt that seem to take your stance, Net. So why should the majority suffer a change, when you could just go play home games, and keep your characters out of society play, if you don't like society rules?
Let's take a look at a particularly deadly Level 1 scenario. There is an invisible thing in it that, when it crits, can do about 60 damage to a level 1 character. In order to prepare for it given skills available at level 1, you would need a perception score of around +25, and even then, it's a pretty low chance. That's just not satisfying in the least.
That would be zero fun to play, even if your character wasn't the one randomly doomed just by attempting to play that scenario.
It makes me wish that the rule actually read:
"When your character's current hit points drop to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score or lower, they will die at the end of their next turn unless healed.
There should always be the chance for the players to actually do something.
The player CAN do something. They can make another character.
One of the major arguments against crits vs players is that scenarios can't be replayed, and that level 1 characters blah blah whine whine.
But you CAN repeat any Tier 1 scenario. Unlimited times, in fact. Which means that in the particular scenario that everyone is complaining about, where a level 1 character is getting geeked? Nothing irreplaceable is lost, except, at most, 3 gaming sessions.
Someone call the waaaambulance.
Make a new character. Do it better. Yes, you're expected to be able to 'optimize' your character so that it doesn't die. If you're not good at this? Find someone to help you. People are usually more than willing to spout their knowledge of tactics and etc at people who don't know.
If you're a level 1 ninja who is getting targeted and insta-killed? You aren't being stealthy enough. You're a LEVEL 1 NINJA. Not a level 3 fighter. Know your role.
I will say that if "fudging the dice" isn't legal to save a character, it also should not be to kill one. I have had several PFS GMs admit to me that they do this. If this is indeed not an encouraged practice, get rid of the screen all together and have a GM mat. Maybe when your GM is rolling out in the open, you'll have less crits. Integrity goes both ways.
I totally agree with this, and I'm on the Crits Happen side of the fence.
GM's should abide by the rules above all others. The only time that GM rolls should be hidden, in my opinion, are for perception or search based checks, and possibly stealth checks. MAYBE knowledge checks, if the GM wants to potentially spread disinformation.
The only reason to roll attacks or saving throws, etc, behind a screen is so the GM can fudge them, which they absolutely should not be doing. In either direction.
Ah, you know, I didn't know there were class specific traits. I might look at that.
Not the most powerful thing in the world, Blakmane, no, but counts for a considerable number of feats, if you look at it. Aside from the heavy armor, and FULL use of martial weapons, there's also the standard feat.
Though, there's no difference in taking it as my 2nd level or my first, so the real difference, as Chris said, is only 1 HP.
Okay, so, I realize this might be a bit cheesy, which is why I wanted to ask about it first... but....
I want to make a cleric, but I was thinking about dipping 1 level into fighter, for the heavy armor and all martial weapons. The extra feat doesn't hurt, either.
I've been playing the character AS a cleric. It's my understanding though that until you 'play the character as level 2' you can change anything on the sheet you want.
Does that mean that when I get my 3 xp, I can wipe everything, write the character up as a fighter, then level it up to cleric?
The only real advantage to doing this would, I think, be the extra 2 hps, right? It seems a bit cheesy to go that route, to my mind, though. Have others done this in the past? Is it considered 'bad form'?
Thanks Todd. I should see you on Friday, and maybe we can discuss it some more.
I forget the real names of the others, but if I see them there, I'll point them out, and we can talk about what happened.
I don't think you shouldn't let the GM in question run games. I just think he should be checked, to make sure he's following the rules, and have a talk with him about LISTENING to players who tell him he's misinterpreting things.
Things like filth fever causing stuns? Stuns allowing for move actions, when the text explicitly says "may take no actions"?
So an ability like the Command one can actually get considerably more powerful than the spell version, minus the fact that metamagic feats can't apply. However, feats such as spell focus (enchantment) can, right? Or is that only for spell-like abilities?
As to why it's a supernatural ability, as opposed to a spell-like, it's because it's a granted ability by a divine force, as opposed to an innate ability?
Though, I'm frankly unclear why that's the case, given that the majority of base domains are listed as spell-like abilities, even though they're not spell-like at all (Like the air domain lightning arc) while things like chaos blade is a supernatural ability (even though it actually emulates a spell, IE align weapon)
Command (Su): As a standard action, you can give a creature an emotionless yet undeniable order, as per the spell command. A Will save negates this effect. You cannot target a creature more than once per day with this ability. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
It states it's a will save, but what is that save based on?
In addition, if you think you're getting the short shrift, why not take that break, leave the players to their own devices for a while, and play some online games with all the GM credit on those characters that you've earned. If you want help finding VTT's, let us know.
But also remember that MOST GM's are going to follow the rules and scenarios properly. Perhaps it would benefit you to be on the other side of that table, and see how you prefer the game?
First off, this is why you ask people, explicitly, "Have you run this scenario before?"
If yes: "Can you keep your mouth shut on encounters?"
If no: "You can't play."
Easy peasy. As stated just a moment ago, Mike Brock has said "Do not change the tactics. They're written that way for a reason."
You were in the wrong by not kicking him from the table. Period.
Link to Brock's post on this. Now.
The moment I see it is the moment I fold up my Pathfinder books, my GM screen, and tuck away the characters. We expect GMs to simply read the book itself and make things "fun" for the party, and with this we sacrifice our own fun to do it. We may as well sit there and Ben Stein that s*&*, because there is no point anymore to giving them personalities other than to appease the players.
I have not played in an instance in over four months because I am the only person who will GM. Literally, if I stop GMing, ten people in two groups stop playing. None of them wants to take the time to set up the scenario. I took a two-month hiatus at one point because of the aforementioned anecdotal person, as well as getting tired of every NPC I had being intimidated, warranted or not. It just became boring for me. So I stop buying scenarios (which I am not compensated for by the store or the players, because the store owner will not allow me to). The group has no GM, because they don't have someone to buy the scenarios, read up on them and put together a fun game for the players. And the entire group goes to Shadowrun, or Legend of the Five Rings, or The Dresden Files.
I've heard Dresden Files is fun, and I love the world. Shadowrun 4e is a nice nerf'd down version of a game that you might like!
If you want to sell your books and mods and GM screen, let me know, or link me an ebay site. Maybe I'll make a bid if the price is right.
Mark and I discussed this. The scenarios are to be GMed as written. This isn't a grey area. I'm more concerned with a GM who thinks he can adequately adjust a scenario to better challenge the party and then kills PCs because extra creatures were added, or harder DCs were assigned to traps, or a coup de grace not written in the tactics, or any number of other circumstances a GM could change. There also is the added consideration that if a GM increases the difficulty of a scenario, you are also burning up more resources of the PCs that other players didn't have to, thus causing the PCs at your adjusted scenario table to spend more gold than they should have had to. It opens a Pandora's Box that just doesn't need to be opened. GM the scenarios as written please.
Also, I liked this one. I think it applies here.
Mike Brock wrote:
Nimon wrote:
Here is the main point. Why GM for PFS? At this point you have made it a job. One no one is getting paid for, well with some possible exceptions I did see a place in Denver that charges 2 bucks to give the GM, but besides an arrangment like that you have really taken out any of the fun out of GMing by this dogma.
As has been said on numerous occasions in the past, Pathfinder Society is not for everyone. If you feel that GMing a scenario as written is not for you, and is more of a job than pleasure, I encourage you to seek out a home game that better fits your gaming needs. It is why I have my own home game of Pathfinder. Because I follow the rules for PFS like everyone else and run the scenario as written. But, when I want a more creative effort as a GM, I will let go in my home game.
I still say that if you don't feel like combat is to be afraid of, you're denying yourself a great deal of the experience of playing this game.
If you want to play pathfinder, and don't want to die? Find some people to do a home game, but keep your chars out of society play.
While I personally agree this is coming from an experienced player who understands and accepts this mortality. It can come as a shock to a lot of newbs who don't understand it yet and that lack of understanding often leads to leaving the game.
The PFS guide doesn't advocate dice fudging but I have to wonder how can you not when you want to keep newbs around long enough to give them that understanding.
I hate to say it, but I'm direct, so I'll just say it...
If they're the type of person that's going to ragequit when they die early on, they're probably not the type of person you want to keep around until they've actually gotten attached to a character, that THEN dies.
Let's face it... while we want our hobby to grow and flourish, it's not a hobby that's for everyone. Some people don't like perm-death. That's their right. But it's a part of society play.
That having been said, the attitude of the GM and other players at the table when the character dies is going to have a lot to do with whether or not that player sticks around, I imagine. Some GM's it really does seem take a measure of glee and satisfaction when a character dies. If that's the case, then the new player is likely to feel 'wow, screw this!'.
On the other hand, if the GM winces and looks at the player, shaking his head quietly, and his fellow players say, "Ouch, man. That sucks. Want us to help you come up with a new character after the game?" or "Man, I've been there. I remember when my first character died..." They're going to feel like it's part of the game, but not one that's the end of the world.
Grief is best handled via community support. The death of a character that someone is attached to is no exception.
Why shouldn't they be able to? We allow PCs to one-shot NPCs all the time if they roll high enough, so why can't a monster/NPC do the same?
As for "using only the tactics described in the scenario, otherwise you do a disservice to the writers and players" BS, no. I have lost count of how often I run into the scenario where someone at the table looks at the title and goes, "Oh, I remember this" and then explicitly screws me over by informing everyone of what actions to take to minimize the chance of failing. In essence, metagaming. Now, as a GM I can kick him fro mthe group for ruining the scenario, but I choose not to.
The tactics given, as far as I am concerned, are base tactics. We constantly tell the fighter with 13 INT that he should be well-versed enough in tactics to know how and when to flank, when to block etc. Why can't NPCs be the same way? Plus I love the look of the rogue who has been screwing me over for a few weeks because he knows the scenario when he gets bullrushed by the Orc Barbarian and flung out a third-story window, then complains about it.
Don't f$!$ with my fun, I don't f&*~ with yours.
First off, this is why you ask people, explicitly, "Have you run this scenario before?"
If yes: "Can you keep your mouth shut on encounters?"
If no: "You can't play."
Easy peasy. As stated just a moment ago, Mike Brock has said "Do not change the tactics. They're written that way for a reason."
You were in the wrong by not kicking him from the table. Period.
Why shouldn't they be able to? We allow PCs to one-shot NPCs all the time if they roll high enough, so why can't a monster/NPC do the same?
Because NPCs don't quit the game because their characters keep getting killed. We are trying to grow the hobby, not create some arbitrary sense of fairness that creates a competence bar most newbs can't reach.
We recently had to ban one of our DMs from DMing at our local organized play group because his kill ratio was so high that we kept losing newbs and even the veterans would avoid his table if they could. And one of the things he tended to do that got people killed was use his own highly experienced skill level to change the tactics of the monster from what was written to far more efficient ones. I hated to do it as he has done a lot of volunteering to help out the local group but he just can't seem to help himself and the complaints were far to much to ignore.
You did the right thing. It was mentioned in another thread that Mike Brock has said that going off the written tactics is NOT allowed. Either he follows the tactics, that are set there for a reason, or he shouldn't be allowed to GM.
Yup, that's just plain wrong. He shouldn't have been modifying encounters, or adding an NPC to help the group.
As for the specific encounters...
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
With regards to this encounter, are you sure it wasn't:
** spoiler omitted **
Spoiler:
Nope. I rolled spellcraft, and he said it was the spell I stated earlier.
They were also rolling will saves of +8. Even with 18 wisdom, that'd be level 4 minimum. One cast flaming sphere, as well, against my stunned cleric. Thankfully, he said that those under the stunned condition can still make move actions, so I only got hit once by it. My cleric still ended up getting taken down.
He's definitely modifying encounters to suit his whims, then. Again, this was supposed to be a 3-4 tier. Level 3 druids, even, x4, would be CR2 base, +4 for 4 creatures (not counting the dire rats, as they're a class feature), for CR6. CR7 if they were actually level 4's.
Also... when the rat hit me, I had to roll vs 'disease' he said... but the disease stunned me? WTF kind of disease stuns... IMMEDIATELY at that? I've never heard of any sort of dire rat that f'n stuns with an attack.
Like I said, it's clear that this guy just isn't following the rules. I won't say he's a bad GM, though, the two somewhat go hand in hand. Maybe I'm being too nice by saying he's not a bad GM. <.< But maybe he just needs some guidance. Hopefully he'll get it when I talk to him and/or the appropriate people.
You have to ACT sneaky, and you need to be PARANOID.
Expect that at any instant your sneak attempt is going to fail.
Plan for it to fail.
In addition to high Sneak skills, you need good Perception. You need to see them BEFORE they see you. Keep reminding the GM that you're attempting to Sneak, also that you are actively looking for anything "strange" or "funny" or "out-of-place". You're scouting, every other sentence you say should be "What do I see?"
There are a lot of times when Sneak is impossible, or almost impossible. Doesn't mena you shouldn't try. Opening doors is one of these times. Walking into an ambush is another. You can TRY, but expect to fail.
However, last time I opened a door "sneakily", it worked, and the party managed to avoid a totally unnecessary and potentially lethal giant scorpion encounter, so it pays to take the chance.
The time before that, the monsters WERE alerted by the rest of the party, but I remained undetected and in good position for a major flanking assist.
Another time I disarmed the trap on a door that would have given our entrance away, and we ALL successfully snuck in and got into prime firing positions before the BBEG knew we were there, even though he was "waiting" for us.
Before that, I opened a door on a seemingly oblivious undead gnoll, and managed to fire bomb him before he even knew I was there.
I'm trying to remember if there were other similar successful Sneaks, but the number told already is quite a lot for a 3rd level character to have under his belt. That's about 1 good Sneak every other scenario, and one scenario had two (actually 3, but the 3rd one was role play and not combat).
Some of these Sneaks can be considered "successful" mainly because there was a back-up plan if they failed.
As a sneak, you have to tell the party what you are planning on doing, and they each have to know what you expect them to do.
Basic tactic is the PULL. Anybody who has ever played a MMPORPG knows how this works. The scout goes in, gets as...
This, in every way. Plus all the parts that didn't go through, but yeah, Jumbo is dead right.
You're right, Wolf, that the journey is important. But the destination can be rewarding, too.
For example? I like hiking. I love a good, long, sometimes steep trail. Especially to the top of waterfalls. It can be grueling, sometimes. Slippery, muddy, difficult, and unpleasant. At the same time, it can be scenic, refreshing and rewarding.
But, you know what? When I get to the top, and I look out at the view? I feel like I accomplished something. Like I challenged myself, and got something out of it.
I do not expect to be helicopter lifted to the top of the waterfall, fed a gourmet lunch under a canopy, and then another helicopter ride to the bottom.
I'm 34 years old. The things I say aren't really a 'back in my day' type, because I'm still 'in my day' as far as I'm concerned. Yes. PEOPLE (not youth.. the WoW generation aren't just 'kids'... a lot of them are in their 20s and even 30s) have shitty attitudes (IE no manners).
Authority, generally, deserves contempt, because authority is given without the responsibility to accompany it. Not that such is related to this conversation, but I just figured I'd add that in. =P Occupy Golarion!
Our youth now love luxury that they don't have to put effort to earn. THAT is my problem.
Not getting hit SHOULDN'T be a build-centric thing. It should be an INTEGRAL part of the f'n game. That doesn't mean, necessarily, having high armor. It means invisibility spells. It means, again, hiding behind the fighter.
Sorry, if you make a fighter that doesn't have ways to not get hit? That's your mistake, and your problem. Don't QQ when you get hit.
I'm going to go off on a small personal rant here, for a second;
If you got one shot? You got attacked. If you got attacked? You were in combat. If you were in combat? You chose to be there.
Now, maybe you didn't say "Hey, there's an enemy. Shoot it!" like someone did in my first PFS experience... but you still let things get to combat.
In my -second- PFS experience (which was MUCH better) there was only 1 actual combat encounter. We could, theoretically, have even avoided THAT encounter. I'm not saying this is viable for all adventures. I know that some require combat. BUT... as a character, you chose to be in combat. That means that there's a risk of death.
If you play games that have no risk, you will, ultimately, lose interest. At least, if you have any sort of self respect. You grow through conflict. People always want to be a hero. People work hard on and get attached to characters.
And then they die.
I'm SO f'n sick of what I call the 'WoW generation'. People who want everything handled to them on a silver platter, but don't want to put the effort forth to actually EARN what they want. I'm not saying that's the case with the OP, necessarily, but it IS terribly prevalent.
If you want to kick ass and take names, you start as a chump. You progress, improve, and learn. That's as a player AND as a character.
Next time? Get more HP's, or don't get hit. Stand behind the fighter. If you are the fighter? Well... bad luck just happens. Sorry.
But seriously? Man up. If you DO get a character to level 11 or 12? You'll be PROUD of that fact, for having known that your character COULD have died along the way, but didn't. If you get to 11 because everyone gets to 11, then... what's the value?
